On Ethics: Press the stop button

Sunday

Jun 24, 2007 at 2:00 AM

Q: For a project on ethnographic research, one of my fellow graduate students wanted to film people in a campus elevator without their knowledge or consent. I think this is an invasion of privacy. He thinks it's fine because the film is for educational purposes and would never be shown publicly. Who is right? — M.S., Rhode Island

Randy Cohen

Q: For a project on ethnographic research, one of my fellow graduate students wanted to film people in a campus elevator without their knowledge or consent. I think this is an invasion of privacy. He thinks it's fine because the film is for educational purposes and would never be shown publicly. Who is right? — M.S., Rhode Island

A: You are. Your classmate is obliged to seek permission from the elevator riders. Dalton Conley, chairman of the sociology department at New York University, says, "In all research endeavors, student projects included, informed consent is the ideal that should be strived for."

This is a prudent policy. Much harm has been done to unwitting research subjects, particularly in the physical sciences: The Tuskegee syphilis study comes immediately to mind. The danger may be less in the social sciences, but here, too, scholars must be honest with their subjects. And while there may be little privacy to violate in an elevator, given the ubiquity of surveillance cameras, that does not eliminate this duty.

Conley says consent is not required when it is impossible to obtain and the expectation of privacy is low (filming a crowd at a ballgame, for example) or when the research is sufficiently important (studying prisoner-guard interactions, say) and deception is necessary to pursue it. But that is not the case here. (Nor am I reassured by any vow to never show the research footage. Somehow YouTube and the like continue to acquire material, as David Hasselhoff can confirm.)

Your classmate's professor should instruct his students not just in research methodology but in the ethics that govern it. (And I should avoid between-floor yodeling and underwear adjusting.)

Q: My nanny recently told me that she takes anti-psychotic medication for a bipolar disorder. I've been happy with her for the past two years. She seldom spends long hours alone with my children because I am a stay-at-home mother, and she would never knowingly harm them, but people with psychosis can't always control themselves. You don't fire someone for a disability, and I feel a particular sense of obligation because she is a young undocumented Haitian, but should I dismiss her to protect my children? — K.V., Brooklyn, N.Y.

A: You should not fire your nanny. Your anxiety stems more from lurid notions of mental illness — "Psycho" and "The Snake Pit" are not documentaries — than any real risk to your children. Your nanny has never endangered them; you've long admired her work.

You are restrained not only by ethics but also by the spirit of the Americans With Disabilities Act. A lawyer I consulted says that if you ran a larger business, "to fire her would be illegal." Were she to stop taking her medication or otherwise display dangerous behavior, a business could dismiss her. Fortunately, as a stay-at-home mother, you can see if her condition deteriorates before anyone is imperiled.

Her immigration status already restricts her other employment prospects, and her limited options, as you imply, impose an additional ethical burden on you. If she can do the job, she should be allowed to keep it.

Update: To K.V.'s surprise, the nanny's family received refugee status in Canada. They moved to Ontario a few weeks ago.

Readers can direct their questions and comments by e-mail to ethicist@nytimes.com. This column originates in The New York Times Magazine.